PURPOSE: Multidisciplinary clinics offer a unique approach to the management of patients with cancer. Yet, limited data exist to show that such clinics affect management. The purpose of this study was to determine whether consultation at a multidisciplinary clinic is associated with selection of active surveillance in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study comprised 701 men with low-risk prostate cancer managed at three tertiary care centers in Boston, MA in 2009. Patients either obtained consultation at a multidisciplinary prostate cancer clinic, at which they were seen by a combination of urologic, radiation, and medical oncologists in a concurrent setting, or they were seen by individual practitioners in sequential settings. The primary outcome was selection of active surveillance. RESULTS: Crude rates of selection of active surveillance in patients seen at a multidisciplinary clinic were double that of patients seen by individual practitioners (43% v 22%), whereas the proportion of men treated with prostatectomy or radiation decreased by approximately 30% (P < .001). On multivariate logistic regression, older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.12; P < .001), unmarried status (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.72; P = .04), increased Charlson comorbidity index (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.77; P = .02), fewer positive cores (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.90 to 0.94; P < .001), and consultation at a multidisciplinary clinic (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.13 to 4.10; P = .02) were significantly associated with pursuit of active surveillance. CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary care is associated with increased selection of active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer. This finding may have an important clinical, social, and economic impact.
PURPOSE: Multidisciplinary clinics offer a unique approach to the management of patients with cancer. Yet, limited data exist to show that such clinics affect management. The purpose of this study was to determine whether consultation at a multidisciplinary clinic is associated with selection of active surveillance in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study comprised 701 men with low-risk prostate cancer managed at three tertiary care centers in Boston, MA in 2009. Patients either obtained consultation at a multidisciplinary prostate cancer clinic, at which they were seen by a combination of urologic, radiation, and medical oncologists in a concurrent setting, or they were seen by individual practitioners in sequential settings. The primary outcome was selection of active surveillance. RESULTS: Crude rates of selection of active surveillance in patients seen at a multidisciplinary clinic were double that of patients seen by individual practitioners (43% v 22%), whereas the proportion of men treated with prostatectomy or radiation decreased by approximately 30% (P < .001). On multivariate logistic regression, older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.12; P < .001), unmarried status (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.72; P = .04), increased Charlson comorbidity index (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.77; P = .02), fewer positive cores (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.90 to 0.94; P < .001), and consultation at a multidisciplinary clinic (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.13 to 4.10; P = .02) were significantly associated with pursuit of active surveillance. CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary care is associated with increased selection of active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer. This finding may have an important clinical, social, and economic impact.
Authors: Räto T Strebel; Tullio Sulser; Hans-Peter Schmid; Silke Gillessen; Martin Fehr; Urs Huber; Miklos Pless; Rudolf Morant; Ralph Winterhalder; Richard Cathomas Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-03-26 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Chad Tang; Karen E Hoffman; Pamela K Allen; Molly Gabel; David Schreiber; Seungtaek Choi; Brian F Chapin; Quynh-Nhu Nguyen; John W Davis; Paul Corn; Christopher Logothetis; John Ward; Steven J Frank; Neema Navai; Sean E McGuire; Mitchell Anscher; Louis Pisters; Curtis A Pettaway; Rachit Kumar; Patrick Linson; Prabhakar Tripuraneni; Jeffrey J Tomaszewski; Ashish B Patel; Mark Augspurger; Deborah A Kuban Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Wuyang Yang; Tomas Garzon-Muvdi; Maria Braileanu; Jose L Porras; Justin M Caplan; Xiaoming Rong; Judy Huang; George I Jallo Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Amandeep S Taggar; Kevin Martell; Siraj Husain; Michael Peacock; Michael Sia; Geoffrey Gotto Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2018-05-28 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: A E Bennett; L O'Neill; D Connolly; E M Guinan; L Boland; S L Doyle; J O'Sullivan; J V Reynolds; J Hussey Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-02-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Ayal A Aizer; Ming-Hui Chen; Ellen P McCarthy; Mallika L Mendu; Sophia Koo; Tyler J Wilhite; Powell L Graham; Toni K Choueiri; Karen E Hoffman; Neil E Martin; Jim C Hu; Paul L Nguyen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-09-23 Impact factor: 44.544